makes you wonder what backroom deals Kerry has made already with the French and Germans, if he thinks as soon as he's President he'll be able to get them involved in Iraq. Afterall, the majority population of both countries are against it.<br><br>I think everyone has made their bed. Americans are forced to help Iraq alone. The French and Germans have to continue the line of 'we were against the war, but for Saddam's removal, for security in Iraq but not for sending troops', etc.<br><br>The best hope for Iraq seems to be the Iraqi people themselves not the UN or NATO or even neighboring Arab countries. Tough road ahead - lets hope for the best. I just wish the people not willing to help will not try to get in the way of those that are helping.<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>

No matter what happens in the next 4 years it will be a win win for a president Kerry. If things work out then aren't we lucky he's the president now and if things don't work out well it's because Bush made such a mess of it he couldn't undo it and that will be especially true in regards to the middle east.<br><br>

i think the people in those countries are merely against dubya; not against helping in iraq...right now, though, helping in iraq is akin to helping dubya and that's a big no-no elsewhere...which is why dubya probably won't ask for more troops (at least publicly).<br><br>but, i agree that iraqis need to get up to snuff and create their own security if they really want their own sovereignty. of course, kerry also says he'll step up the effort towards this goal. <br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Natíl Security Cncl staff specialist.

"i think the people in those countries are merely against dubya; not against helping in iraq"<br><br>makes me wonder how they sleep at night with these moral dilemmas. <br><br>They also seem to be for UN resolutions but not for enforcing them, which is like having laws without punishment.<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>

That would explain why they were against the war. Is there a UN protocol they are waiting for to take the course in order to help now?<br><br>I think countries not involved now with helping, are not there because it is simply too dangerous for them to be there. <br><br>And I respectfully disagree that they were right. Using perfect hindsight, I think Saddam should have taken out back in 1991 and the Iraqi's wouldn't have had to suffer through all those years of sanctions and brutality while UN protocols were punishing Iraq and Saddam was building palaces. Just as doing something has it's consequences, doing nothing has it's consequences too.<br><br>Both solutions are not cost free.<br><br>I think President Bush is doing a fine job with involving the UN, when the UN can help. An interim government has been set up and a resolution pass 15-0 supporting it. He's asked NATO for help and France and Germany respectfully declined. I'm sure he'll ask again, in the meantime you can't turn your back and not help Iraq the best way you can.<br><br>I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the UN as my sole means of getting help.<br><br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>

You could ask the same thing about there being an American protocol for asking for help--how long before it becomes obvious that it's necessary to do so?<br><br>I understand your point about taking out Saddam. But I also understand the position that taking the initiative to remove governments that we don't like is a dangerous thing to do. And that's not to say that Saddam wasn't monstrous. He was. But so are many many other governments.<br><br>And please understand that I'm not suggesting that such leaders or governments should simply be left alone. I am suggesting that teh human race has come to the point in its global development that it may require a real international government, in which the rule of international law is real, and is enforced by an international police force. All pie in the sky at this point, I acknowledge, and a pretty scary proposition for countries like the US or any ohter major power because it entails recognizing an authority beyond the national borders that might be as significant to the nation as the federal government is to the state governments. And that's scary, no doubt about it.<br><br>

were for letting the UN protocols take their course.<br><br>The UN had 10 YEARs of protocols, they failed because of decision by committee. They can never decide on what to do in a timely fashion - there are always a stick in the mud at the UN so to speak<br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.